NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2021

2019005749 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/110,832 07/11/2016 David NGUYEN 042933/513124 3617
10949 7590 03/16/2021
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
One South at The Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
CASSITY, ROBERT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2115
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID NGUYEN and PRAVEEN KRISHNAN

Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
Technology Center 2100

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 30, 33–35, 38, 41–43, 46, and 49–59.
Claims App. Claims 1–30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, and 48 have
been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed July 11, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Sept. 24, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 6,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 23, 2019 (“Ans.”),
and Reply Brief, filed July 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia
Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for optimizing the settings of devices (e.g., a
heating/cooling system, humidifier, sound system, temperature sensor, light)
in a user’s bedroom based on the user’s historical sleep data to thereby
create an optimal environment conducive to the user getting a good night’s
sleep (aspirational result). Spec. 1:21–26, 19:8–13, 20:27–21:14. Figures 3
and 5, reproduced below, are useful for understanding the claimed subject
matter:

Figure 3 illustrates controller (50) adjusting environmental data associated
with object settings in a user’s sleeping environment to provide the user with
a good night’s sleep. Id. at 19:8–13, 25–34.
Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
3

Figure 5 illustrates controller (50) adjusting environmental data (150)
associated with object settings to obtain aspirational settings providing the
user with a good night’s sleep. Id. at 19:8–13, 25–34.

As depicted in Figures 3 and 5 above, upon receiving from objects
(110) environmental data (150) regarding object settings, processor (70) in
controller (50) compares the received environmental data with aspirational
sleep data to thereby adjust the object settings. Spec. 17:5–7, 19:8–24,
20:28–21:4.
Claims 30, 38, and 46 are independent. Claim 30 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
4
30. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at
least one memory including computer program code, the at least
one memory and the computer program code configured to,
with the processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
receive environmental data regarding object settings for a
plurality of objects, wherein the object settings comprise one or
more of an operational state of an object and an indication of
presence of the object, and wherein the operational state
comprises an indication as to whether a respective object is
active or inactive;
receive performance data regarding a result of a period of
sleep;
determine whether the result is a predetermined aspirational
result based at least on the performance data received;
in an instance in which the result is the predetermined
aspirational result, identify at least one of the plurality of
objects as contributing to the predetermined aspirational result
based at least on the environmental data received including the
indication as to whether the respective object is active or
inactive; and
cause the object setting of the at least one object
identified to be set to the respective object setting determined.

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
McFarland US 2006/0049976 A1 Mar. 9, 2006
Kameyama US 2007/0118026 A1 May 24, 2007
Oexman US 2011/0010014 A1 Jan. 13, 2011
George US 2015/0150501 A1 June 4, 2015

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
5
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 30, 33–35, 38, 41–43, 46, and 49–59 as
follows:
Claims 30, 33–35, 38, 41–43, 46, 49, 52, and 56 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Oexman. Final Act. 2–4. 4
Claims 50, 54, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Oexman and McFarland. Id. at 5–7.
Claims 51 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Oexman and George. Id. at 7–8.
Claims 53, 57, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Oexman and Kameyama. Id. at 8–10.
V. ANALYSIS
1. Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Oexman
describes the environmental data indicating whether an associated object is
active or inactive, as recited in independent claim 30. Appeal Br. 6–7. In
particular, Appellant argues that Oexman’s disclosure of adjusting the
sleeping environment to promote a higher quality of sleep state does not
describe the disputed claim limitations. Id. at 8. According to Appellant,
Oexman only discloses a collector analyzing collected sleep data to adjust
the temperature of a sleep unit and other environmental devices (HVAC,
sound system) without indicating whether any of the units is active or
inactive. Id. (citing Oexman ¶¶ 10, 57, 69). Further, Appellant argues that

4 The Examiner inadvertently includes canceled claims 31, 32, 36, 37, 39,
40, 44, 45, 47, and 48 in this rejection. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
6
Oexman does not describe a correlation of the active/inactive status with a
predetermined aspirational result of a good night sleep. Id.at 8–9.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error.
Oexman discloses a method and system for controlling a user’s
bedroom environment to provide the user with a good night’s sleep.
Oexman ¶¶ 10, Fig. 1. In particular, Oexman discloses, upon receiving sleep
data regarding the user’s environment, a controller adjusts the sleep system
adjustment unit according to an ideal temperature for promoting healthy
sleep. Id. ¶¶ 69–73. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Oexman’s
disclosure of turning on and off the sound conditioner describes the sound
conditioner being placed in active/inactive modes. Ans. 20–21 (citing
Oexman ¶ 80). As correctly noted by the Examiner, Oexman’s disclosure of
the controller receiving setting data from various devices (e.g. HVAC,
humidifier), to thereby adjust said devices for promoting the user’s optimal
sleep environment describes that the devices are in active status, which is
correlated with the optimal result. Id. Because we are not persuaded of
Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 as
anticipated by Oexman.
Regarding the rejection of claims 52 and 56, Appellant argues that
Oexman does not describe receiving performance data wherein the
aspirational result includes feedback received from the user. Appeal Br. 11.
In particular, Appellant argues that Oexman’s disclosure of data sensed from
the user does not teach feedback data. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive of reversible Examiner error. Because Appellant’s Specification
does not define user feedback to exclude data sensed from the user, we agree
Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
7
with the Examiner that Oexman’s disclosure of sensing quality sleep data
from the user to adjust object settings according to the aspirational data
describes that the aspirational data includes user feedback. Ans. 22–23
(citing ¶¶ 65, 69, 80). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 52 and 56 as anticipated by Oexman.
Regarding the rejection of claims 33–35, 38, 41–43, 46, and 49,
Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the
patentability of claims 30, 52, and 56 above. As such, claims 33–35, 38, 41–
43, 46, and 49 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
2. Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejection of claims 51 and 55, Appellant argues that the
combination of Oexman and George does not teach or suggest receiving
environmental data relating to preparatory actions taken by a user prior to
the period of sleep. Appeal Br. 10. In particular, Appellant argues that
George’s disclosure of determining whether a patient is using a sleep
disorder appliance does not teach actions taken by the user in preparation for
bed. Id. at 10–11. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible
Examiner error. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that George’s
disclosure of the user placing the sleep disorder appliance in the user’s
mouth as well as an earpiece to collect sleep data teaches or suggests actions
taken by the user in preparation to go to bed. Ans. 22, George ¶¶15–17, Fig.
2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 51 and 55 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Oexman and George.
Regarding the rejections of claims 50, 53, 54 and 57–59, Appellant
does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially
Appeal 2019-005749
Application 15/110,832
8
the same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of
claims 51 and 55 above. As such, claims 50, 53, 54, and 57–59 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejections of claims 30, 33–35, 38, 41–43, 46, and 49–
59.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
30, 33–35, 38, 41–
43, 46, 49, 52, 56 102 Oexman
30, 33–35,
38, 41–43,
46, 49, 52,
56

50, 54, 58 103 Oexman, McFarland 50, 54, 58
51, 55 Oexman, George 51, 55
53, 57, 59 103 Oexman, Kameyama 53, 57, 59
Overall Outcome
30, 33–35,
38, 41–43,
46, 49–59

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED